SERF’s UP: Could More Expensive Sustainable Fuels Result in a Less Expensive and Faster Transition?

SNAME’s M-50 Sustainable Fuels Technology and Research panel has given itself the task to try to figure out if there actually is a preferred sustainable fuel out there.

This is a massive rabbit hole effort that does not fixate on the state of the art, but instead is making an attempt to engage all engineering tools, experience, and insight to predict the optimal future.

SNAME’s assumption focuses on identifying the optimal fuel that will be universally (or at least near universally) used when direct electric (a connection to the electric distribution net or batteries) cannot work. For the purpose of the M-50 panel effort, this fuel that can make most of the world the happiest is called SERF, Sustainable Energy Remainder Fuel.

In particular this would be fuel for large ships and we all know the various fuel candidates. However, building infrastructure and technology for all candidates would be dumb if some are just much less attractive in a worldwide application and the panel is attempting to identify technological white whales to avoid those costs.

Predicting the future is an uncertain task, but by engaging with every possible variable, the dive into the rabbit hole uncovers various truths that then tend to steer the effort towards a less foggy future.

Some truths relate to engaging existing misinformation with real numbers, and there is so much out there such as the incredible inefficiency and wastefulness of corn ethanol and the mental fallacy that somehow PV solar farms will affect a farmer’s ability to earn a living.

Others take more work and even require a dive into the history of technology development.

Two examples readily come to mind.

The first occurs in a YouTube video called Rory Sutherland on EV’s versus Gas Cars.

Here the narrator imagines a world where EV’s are the dominant mode of transportation, and somebody proposes cars with internal combustion engines. The narrator discusses the additional complications that occur with internal combustion engines and it becomes patently clear that IC cars are just plain silly. We just don’t realize it because we are so used to cars with internal combustion engines.

In maritime we encountered a similar issue with the introduction of HFO Residual fuels.

Instead of performing large scale purification at the refinery and delivering certified fuels, we deliver unpurified fuel to vessels and require ship’s crews to perform small batch fuel purification, stick them with the sludge aboard the vessel, and expect them to be experts in fuel oil treatment.

It is just plain stupid when you think about it and, moreover, overall, it costs more than industrial scale purification, even if we ignore the damage to the environment by crews dumping the sludge overboard out of frustration.

We know what went wrong, and we need to make sure we do not make the same error twice.

Then there are the red herring arguments. These are called the “what aboutisms”. What about the environmental damage from lithium mining, and what about the lack of recycling of windmill blades? And because every misinformed bystander will make them, they all need to be addressed.

Or what about the high cost of all these sustainable fuels?

Yes, they are initially more expensive, but once you go down the engineering rabbit hole it becomes apparent that the cost of those fuels is quite irrelevant to the world as a whole.

The whole analysis is very long, but let’s focus on a simple argument first. Shipowners don’t care how much fuel costs; as long as their fuel is not more expensive than their competitor’s fuel. This is why all the crews in the world got saddled with HFO’s. One Owner started to use it, and because it was cheaper, all other owners had to saddle their crews with HFO.

Go down deeper into the SERF cost rabbit hole and things get really weird.

We cannot compare the cost of a SERF with how we think of the cost of fuels today.

The SERF will occupy an entirely different place in a world where the cheapest source of energy, by far, will be electricity. Since SERF’s will require electricity for production (e-fuels), SERFs will always be more expensive than electricity.

Now imagine two worlds. World One where SERF’s are only a little more expensive than electricity and World Two where SERF’s are lot more expensive than electricity.

In World One there will not be a strong drive to transition to ever more all-electric solutions. As such, battery development may lag, and people will hold on to old equipment using a SERF instead of transitioning to more efficient all-electric equipment.

Meanwhile in World Two, due to the cost difference, there will be a much stronger drive to switch from SERF equipment to all electric equipment.

But then “what abouters” almost certainly will say: “Yes, but what about the poor citizen who will have to pay more for the more expensive SERF during this transition period?”

And then SNAME M-50 will have to explain that a rational citizen will inherently avoid the use of expensive SERF and focus on using direct electric. If there is a case where a poor citizen will have to use a SERF, it will almost certainly be a situation related to their business which then reverts to the “shipowners don’t care what fuels costs” argument or will relate to a personal choice activity that is inherently wasteful (super fast offshore sport fishermen).

M-50 is not specifically focusing on the most expensive SERF’s, but it shows that the analysis is extremely complex.

It also shows that if somebody is making a simple “what about” sustainability argument without hard data, almost certainly the argument is wrong, and they are looking into the rabbit hole but refuse to actually dive in.

Contact me if you want to join me in the SERF rabbit hole.